On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Daniel Berlin <dber...@dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course, just I (and others) don't see why they should do it in this
>>>> case. Delaying a *branch* is different from, say, using a proprietary
>>>> version control or bug tracking system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't either. Requesting a delay of a *release* on a license issue
>>> is completely and perfectly understandable, but what that has to do
>>> with making a *branch* makes absolutely no sense to me.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. I'll note nobody has really argued that delaying a branch to deal
>> with a license issue makes any sense. The FSF itself hasn't even stated
>> reasons for their stance. That may simply be because the issue is expected
>> to be moot after the weekend meetings.
>>
>> What I find most distressing about this whole discussion is the fact that we
>> have developers who don't seem to grasp that the FSF owns the copyright to
>> GCC and we are effectively volunteering to work in the FSF's sandbox under
>> certain rules and guidelines set forth by the FSF.
>
> Maybe this is because every piece of documentation on the GCC project
> says otherwise?
>
Also, do you not realize this is precisely because of the massive lack
of transparency about how the project is governed?
Do you guys realize that governing like this is in fact, destroying
our community (how fast is a question people disagree about)?
